Gita Satsang - Chapter 6 : Verses 31 to 32 Swami Dayananda's commentary

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

On behalf of all of you I sincerely express my appreciation to Swami

Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam for providing his

commentary to benefit the list members.

 

Part IVerses 31 to 32

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

I AM EVERYTHING

Elsewhere, Sankara says, `In half a verse I shall explain what has

been said before by millions of words and texts — ardha-slokena

pravaksyami yaduktam grantha-ko¶ibhih.' And, having already used one

half of a verse to say this much, he completes the verse by saying,

`Brahman is satya and the whole world, jagat, is mithya — brahma

satyam jagan mithya,' and `Jiva is non-separate from Brahman — jivah

brahmaiva na aparah' This means that the body, mind, and senses are

also mithya. And the jiva that is other than the physical body, mind,

and senses, that is atma, is Brahman. This means that, I am everything

— idam sarvam aham asmi.

This vision, then, is the vision that resolves the difference between

the jiva and Isvara, which is why Isvara is never remote from you nor

are you ever away from Him. There is no difference other than what is

caused by ignorance. Ignorance being removed, all that is there is one

flame of consciousness in which everything exists — everything that is

inquired into, everything that is not inquired into, the known and the

unknown, all exist in atma, alone. The atma of Isvara and the atma of

the jiva is one and the same atma whose svarupa is consciousness. This

consciousness, this atma, alone is self-existent, the whole, which is

Isvara, which is the jiva.

Further, Krsna contiues:

sarvabhutasthitam yo mam bhajatyekatvamasthitah

sarvatha vartamano'pi sa yogi mayi vartate Verse 31

yah — the one who; ekatvam — oneness; ()asthitah (san) — having

gained; sarva-bhuta-sthitam — abiding in all beings; mam — Me; bhajati

— gains (the vision); sah yogi — that yogi; sarvatha — in whatever

way; vartamanah — remaining; api — even; mayi — in Me; vartate —

abides

The one who gains (the vision), having gained the oneness of me

abiding in all beings, that yogi abides in Me whatever he (or she)

does.

This verse continues to discuss the person who has the vision of the

oneness of atma in all beings, who knows that atma is himself or

herself alone, and is therefore, not separate from Isvara. Such a

person knows himself or herself to be Isvara in fact. All this is

restated here.

`Mam sarva-bhuta-sthitam yo bhajati' — this refers to the one who

gains the vision, i.e., the one who has this vision of Isvara as that,

which abides in all beings. Therefore, the self is non-separate from

Paramesvara. The vision that is gained is in terms of the oneness of

atma — the oneness of atma that is never divided, that is the

undivided whole. And the one who recognises Isvara in this undivided

form, ekatvam asthitah, the one who gains this vision of Isvara, that

yogi, however he or she may live, remains with Isvara — sarvatha

vartamanah api sah yogi mayi vartate. Thus Krsna says, `The person

remains in Me alone.'

This verse answers the question of whether, having gained the vision,

it can ever be lost. I am often asked, `Swamiji, suppose a person

gains this vision, is it not possible that living in the day-to-day

world of duality, the person can lose the atma? `No!' Krsna says here.

Whatever the person does, whatever happens to the person, seeing,

hearing, talking, walking, in whichever way he or she happens to live,

whether as a brahmacari, a grhastha, or a sannyasi, whether a man or a

woman, young or old — sarvatha vartamanah api — the vision remains.

The stage of life the person is in or the profession he or she happens

to be pursuing is all because of the person's prarabdha. In fact,

there is nothing wrong for the person and there is nothing right

either.

FOR THE PERSON WHO HAS THE VISION, SASTRA IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE

Whatever the sastra says with reference to dharma and adharma no

longer applies to the person who is above dharma and adharma. This

must be clearly understood. The person is free and therefore, called

mukta, nitya-mukta, one who is always free. This free person never

goes away from Me. Never again do I become remote for the person

because one can never be away from oneself.

Even now, I am not away from the truth of myself, sat-cit-ananda-atma.

Only ignorance can keep me away and, for the person being discussed

here, ignorance is gone. Therefore, wherever the person is, whatever

he or she is doing — sarvatha vartamanah api — the person remains in

Me, oneself, alone — mayi vartate. There is no moving away from Me for

the person who is a jivan-mukta i.e., living, the person is liberated.

This liberation, moksa, is the phala, the result of this vision, this

knowledge of atma.

WHEN YOU 'BELIEVE' IN ISVARA, HE IS REMOTE

The conclusion here, then, is that Isvara is not something remote from

oneself — Isvarah na paroksah. Paroksa is what is inferred, believed,

or presumed. You have a presumption that there is an Isvara, which

amounts to a belief because there is no verifiable proof. And, as long

as existence of Isvara is simply a belief, Isvara is remote, something

that exists for you indirectly, i.e., paroksa, because it is a belief.

Similarly, if you say that a tree exists, but you do not directly see

it, it is paroksa. For example, by seeing smoke, you can assume there

is fire, even though the fire is not directly seen by you. Any object

whose existence is arrived at by you through inference is called

paroksa, indirectly known, for you.

Whereas anything that is sensorily perceived — anything you see, hear,

smell, taste, or touch — is called pratyaksa. When I hold up a piece

of crystal, knowing it is crystal it is pratyaksa for me, but for you

it will be paroksa if you do not know whether it is crystal or glass.

You can infer it is crystal until you feel the weight of it and then

you will know. The point to be understood here is what is directly

perceived is called pratyaksa and what is indirectly arrived at is

called paroksa.

Isvara cannot be pratyaksa. If Isvara could be directly perceived, it

would mean that he is other than yourself — anatma. Isvara cannot be

anatma because he can never be an object for you. Anatma is entirely

dependent upon caitanya, atma. If Isvara were to become anatma, he

would be mithya and you, being atma, would become satya! Because

Isvara cannot be anatma, he can never become pratyaksa, an object of

your perception. Nor can he be inferred, inference being based on

perception. Still, you believe that Isvara exists, which means Isvara

is paroksa.

The person who believes that Isvara exists is called an astika, one

who believes. And, for the astika, there is a pramana, a sastra,

through which he or she comes to understand, comes to believe, that

Isvara exists. And because you believe, you give validity to the means

of knowledge, the sastra, even though what is said is not verifiable.

Because some supporting logic is available, you accept that Isvara

exists — and this belief, this acceptance, is paroksa-jnana, indirect

knowledge.

SELF-KNOWLEDGE IS IMMEDIATE KNOWLEDGE

But the knowledge being discussed in this verse is not paroksa-jnana.

The one who has gained the knowledge of atma is the one who has gained

the knowledge of oneself. Such a person concludes, `I am everything.

There is nothing separate from me.' Here, when the Lord says, `Me,'

what is implied is pure consciousness, caitanya, which is param

brahma, satya-jnana-ananta-brahma, and everything else is dependent

upon that. And this satya-jnana-ananta-brahma, is atma, oneself.

Because there is no difference between Isvara, Brahman, and myself, I

never become paroksa to him; nor does he become paroksa to me. This is

what we call advaita, the non-difference, abheda, between Isvara, and

the jiva. This identity between the jiva and Isvara,

jiva-isvara-aikya, was pointed out in the previous verse also.

Sankara also points out in his commentary of the previous verse that

atma never becomes paroksa, Atma is always free, nitya-mukta. There is

no bondage for atma because there is nothing other than oneself;

therefore, Krsna says, `The person remains in Me alone — mayi eva

vartate. This means that once ignorance is no longer there, there is

no question of the knowledge being lost.

Knowledge of oneself, atma-jnana, is not memory-based. Only knowledge

that is memory-based can be forgotten. Whatever you have, you can

always lose. Memory is for me, atma. Because memory is something I

have, I can lose it. But, here, what is known is myself alone. The

self-ignorance I had before is gone in the wake of knowledge wherein

the self is equated with Brahman. Once gained, this knowledge is never

lost.

Unless atma becomes paroksa, there is no question of the wise person

being away from Me and atma can never become paroksa because it is

nitya-aparoksa, it is always directly known by you. Whether you are a

confused person, a discriminating person, or a jnani, atma is never

paroksa. Samsara is directly known by the person; it is not something

that is inferred. It is an experience for the person and, therefore,

aparoksa. As a samsari, ajnani, `I am' is aparoksa; and as a viveki,

jnani also `I am' is aparoksa. Therefore, atma is nitya-aparoksa,

always self-evident.

Being nitya-aparoksa, atma is nitya-mukta, always liberated. Knowledge

makes the person recognise the fact of being ever liberated. This is

why the person is also called jivan-mukta — living, the person gains

the knowledge that is liberation. Once this knowledge has been gained,

let the person do whatever he wants, perform vaidika-karma or not,

teach or not teach. Let the person be in any stage of life and perform

any action, he or she is still with Me alone. Even, for the sake of

argument, if such a person were to commit murder, the person would not

be away from Me because he or she is not a doer.

The next question, of course, is `Could such a person commit such

actions?' `No!' says Krsna in the next verse. Wrong action is not

possible for the person.

atmaupamyena sarvatra samam pasyati yo'rjuna

sukham va yadi va duhkham sa yogi paramo matah Verse 32

arjuna — O Arjuna!; yah — the one who; sarvatra — everywhere; sukham

va — either pleasure; yadi va duhkham — or pain; atma-aupamyena —

taking oneself as an example (basis); samam — the same; pasyati —

sees; sah — that; yogi — yogi; paramah — the most exalted; matah — is

regarded

If one who, taking oneself as an example (basis) in all situations

sees either pleasure or pain as the same, that yogi, O Arjuna, is

regarded as the most exalted.

Here, Krsna obviates the problem of whether the wise person can

perform any action of adharma, by showing that there is no way of his

doing that. For such a person, atma, oneself, is the upama, the

example. The self itself becomes the example — atma- aupamyam.

One who is oneself as an example sees that which is equal in all

beings, sarvatra samam pasyati, as being equal to oneself alone. The

person does not look upon others from any other matrix except himself

or herself alone. With reference to all beings, the vision is equal,

the same. One looks upon others as oneself alone on the basis of the

example of oneself. This is one meaning. There is also another

meaning, which we shall see later.

In the second line of the verse, the vision of sameness is pointed out

in terms of happiness and pain, sukham va duhkham va. My happiness,

sukha, my welfare, is highly desirable to me and, therefore, I go for

it, which is the same for everyone. Every being is equally interested

in its own sukha. Therefore, `I' become the matrix, the basis, for my

interaction with other beings. Similarly, duhkha is what is not

desirable for me or for anyone else either.

THE BASIS OF DHARMA

Here you can see how dharma itself is born. The very basis of dharma

is the universal mutual expectation of people. What I expect of others

is what others expect of me. If what is desirable, sukha, for me is

desirable for others and what is undesirable, duhkha, for me is

undesirable for others also, then there is a common basis, which is

what is meant by dharma.

Having the vision of sameness in all beings, then, the person

discussed here does not do what is not desirable. Therefore, what

Krsna said in the previous verse, `Whatever the person does, he (or

she) remains in Me — sarvatha vartamanah api mayi vartate,' is further

explained here. What was said there could be misunderstood to mean

that a jnani could do things that are adharma and yet he remains in

Isvara. Therefore, answering the question, `Will such a person do

actions that are considered to be wrong, adharma?' Krsna says `No!' It

is not possible because what is good for the jnani is good for others

too. And what is bad for the jnani is bad for others also. If the

jnani does not like getting hurt, then he or she is not going to hurt

anyone else. In this way, non-injury, ahimsa, becomes natural to the

jnani.

Even for a viveki, a simple, mature person, ahimsa is a very common

dharma. And, for a jnani, one who has lived a life of dharma and who

has deliberately pursued and gained the knowledge, dharma becomes

spontaneous, very natural.

If you look at any crime, like hurting another person, or any kind of

action considered to be adharma, behind it there is always a small

ego. Every ego is small, in fact. A big ego is also small, any ego

being just a bubble filled with air. Whether the bubble is big or

small, it is nothing but air. That is all there is to this ego

business, just so much air. Ego itself is a false entity and this

false entity is behind every crime, large or small.

THE NATURE OF THE EGO

And what kind of ego is this? The ego of an insecure person, an

insecure ego that has fear and greed. Because it has fear and greed,

it is insecure; because it is insecure, it is frightened. A frightened

person or a greedy person can perform actions that are not very

committed to dharma. In fact, all unbecoming actions stem from the

insecure ego and no ego is secure. Because the nature of ego is

isolation, there is duality, dvaita.

In the Brhadaranyakopanisad, it is said that wherever there is

duality, there will be fear — dvitiyad vai bhayam bhavati. A similar

statement is found in the Taittiriyopanisad conveying the same sense —

udaram antaram kurute atha tasya bhayam bhavati. The original duality

is the duality between the individual, jiva, and Isvara, the Lord —

jivesvara-dvaita — meaning that Isvara is something other than myself.

This dvaita makes you small. If Isvara is everything else, you become

whatever is left out. Naturally, then, you become small. Everything

else is infinitely large and you are small. And, once this original

dvaita is there, there is the dvaita between one individual and

another — jiva-jiva-dvaita and between the jiva and the world —

jiva-jagat-dvaita.

Now, if the duality between jiva and jiva and between jiva and jagat

is real, then the duality between jiva and Isvara is also real. Why?

Because, if the jiva-jiva-dvaita and the jiva-jagat-dvaita are real,

there must be an Isvara other than this jagat. Then that Isvara is

just another guy, like any other jiva, and between him and the other

jivas, including myself, there will be a difference. Also, between all

these anatmas and myself there will be difference. All the way, then,

there is difference, there being dvaita between the jivas, the jagat,

and Isvara. If there is dvaita between the jivas, between the jiva and

the jagat, and between the jagat and Isvara — if there is dvaita

between these three — then your isolation is established. Mortality is

established, imperfection is established, inadequacy is established

all of which are accompanied by fear, greed, pain, sorrow, etc.

EGO IS IGNORANCE-BASED

Since ego implies isolation, behind every crime there is ego. But the

yogi Krsna is talking about is the one who has pricked the bubble of

this ego. The bubble, ego, is no longer there; one ocean alone is

there. Ego is ignorance-based, ignorance of atma. Once the ignorance

of atma is gone, all that remains is one atma, which is param brahma.

There is no ego anymore. And, when the ego is not there, where is the

question of the person doing anything improper? The person abides in

Isvara alone — mayi eva vartate. But for the sake of argument, you can

say that the person can do anything he or she likes. Even though the

person still does various things, whatever these may be or however

they are done, the person remains in me alone. This is sastra.

When the Lord says, `remaining in Me alone,' it means that the person

is never separate from him — in other words, the person and the Lord

are one and the same. A person who has this equal vision everywhere

has no necessity to do things that are not in keeping with dharma. The

person naturally sees that what is sukha for him or her is also sukha

for others and what is duhkha for him or her is duhkha for other

people as well.

But will the person who has this vision not compromise it in any way?

After all, most people understand that what makes them happy or

unhappy affects others in the same way, but still they do not always

behave according to dharma. Suppose something becomes so important to

this person, is it not possible that the vision will be set aside,

temporarily at least? In fact, this problem will not arise because,

for the person who has this vision, there is no notion that `I am

limited.' There is knowledge that the same atma is in all beings and

all beings are in oneself, atma, alone. The ego for this person is

badhita, sublated. It is no more taken as real.

Therefore, this person is one for whom ahimsa is natural, which is in

fact the spirit of sannyasa. A person who has this clear vision of

atma, samyag-darsana-nis¶ha, who is naturally, spontaneously, given to

ahimsa, who no longer needs to practice ahimsa deliberately because it

is his or her very nature, is described here as the most exalted,

parama, among yogis.

A SECOND INTERPRETATION OF THE VERSE

We can look at this verse in another way using the option offered by

the word `va' as `or,' by adding this va (or) to sukha and duhkha —

sukham va yadi va duhkham. Here, situations are categorised in a

two-fold way, those producing sukha and those producing duhkha, both

of which the wise person looks at equally — samam pasyati. This means

that, for the person, sukha and duhkha are the same. Why? Because he

or she looks at them both with the example of himself or herself

alone. Atma being the example, the basis of measurement, the matrix of

judgement, the person sees that which is equal in both sukha and

duhkha.

How is this possible? Because the person understands the nature of

atma as fullness, wholeness, and from this basis, he or she looks at

sukha and duhkha. Both are within that fullness alone. This does not

mean that the person does not meet with situations producing sukha and

duhkha. The point being made here is that the person looks at all

situations, even the duhkha of death, from the basis of atma alone.

Because the person knows oneself, atma as fullness there is no ripple

of reaction whatever the situation. To put it another way, when sukha

comes, the person's fullness does not increase and when duhkha comes,

the fullness does not decrease, meaning that the person is always with

Isvara — mayi eva vartate. There is no situation which is going to

take the person away from Isvara.

This, is the connection with the previous verse where it was said,

`Whatever the person does — sarvatha vartamanah api.' There is no

question of the person `being away from Me, Isvara' or `forgetting Me,

Isvara,' because of any situation involving duhkha or sukha. Why?

Because atma is the example, the basis, upama for the person — the

atma that is aham, `I.'

Previously, it was pointed out that atma is Paramesvara, paramatma.

Therefore, paramatma is the upama, the example, for the person who

comes to bear upon all situations with the fullness that is the nature

of atma. This particular interpretation is in keeping with the example

of the river and the ocean in the second chapter of the Gita.

The verse says:

apuryamanamacalapratis¶ham samudramapah pravisanti yadvat

tadvatkama yam pravisanti sarve sa santimapnoti na kamakami (2-70)

Apuryamana means fullness, that which is completely filled from all

sides, like the ocean, samudra. Acala means that the ocean remains in

its own glory and does not move around. Pratis¶ha is that which is

well rooted, meaning the ocean is well rooted in its own glory.

And, into this ocean, waters enter — apah pravisanti, from different

directions. Is the ocean affected in any way by this event? Does the

oceanness increase? No. And if no waters enter for a time, because of

drought, etc., the oceanness also does not decrease. Oceans do not dry

up; nor do they overflow. Such situations simply do not occur.

FULLNESS DEPENDS ON NOTHING

This example is a good one in terms of the fullness that is the nature

of atma; the example holds water in other words! Whether the waters

enter or do not enter, the ocean always remains the same. It is always

oceanness because oceanness does not depend upon any other source of

water to be ocean. Similarly, here, the yogi, a wise person, who is

ananta, does not depend for his or her fullness upon a given

situation. Whatever happens, sukha or duhkha, the person sees them

both equally; therefore, he or she remains tranquil — sa santim

apnoti. Whatever objects, kamas enter, from whatever direction,

through the gates of the five sense organs, they do not disturb the

person at all, just as the ocean is not disturbed by the waters.

Whereas, the person who is a desirer of various objects, kamakami, who

is dependent upon their presence or absence for his or her happiness,

is likened to a pond. If too much water comes in the form of rain or

floods, you do not see the pond at all, and if there is no rain, it

dries up altogether. Similarly, the kamakami is like a yo-yo; if

something desirable comes along, he or she goes up and if it is

something undesirable, the person goes down. However, for the yogi

discussed here, there is no yo-yo because he or she remains with Me,

the self, alone. Whatever the tragedy, even if it meets the classical

orthodox definition of a genuine tragedy, the person remains the same.

This is the yogi Krsna is discussing here in keeping with the previous

verse.

Thus, there are two interpretations possible here; the yogi remains

the same in any situation, whether it be sukha or duhkha, and the yogi

looks upon others as he or she looks upon himself or herself. This

being so, the person will not perform a wrong action. To treat others

as you would have them treat you is applicable to everyone, in fact.

Every human being is supposed to live this way, what to talk of a

yogi!

TO HURT OTHERS IS TO BE HURT IN THE PROCESS

No one can hurt another without getting hurt in the process, even

though it may sometimes seem to be otherwise. We see this even in

tennis matches. You begin with `love' and then you fight to win. And,

when you do win, you are ecstatic. On the way to the net to shake

hands with your opponent, you jump up and down and throw your racket

into the air. You are very happy — until you see the other person's

sadness in having lost! Then, all your joy goes. Do you know why?

Because no human heart was ever made that cannot empathise with a

person who is sad.

You know what it is to be on the other side of the net because you,

too, have had days like that. Therefore, you cannot but pick up the

other person's sadness immediately. Why? because, you can never hurt

another without getting hurt in the process. It is just not possible.

We think that there are criminals who have so hardened their hearts

that they can automatically do harm to others, but this is not true.

Even psychopaths have their spells of empathy because of how the human

heart is.